How Bad is Beer??

"craft beer enthusiast".... barf

Brent....if you understand this correctly we just want you to know what ingredients are in that beer you're drinking. To understand it correctly we don't care whether you put what comes out of the north end of a south bound chicken, turkey, cow, or goat in it...just put it on the label and be honest about it. That's all you need to understand correctly.

Morgan.....that was AWESOME....caught those lying, two faced, baby kissing, spinmeisters at their own game . Good on you!

Everyone, please just read this: brookstonbeerbulletin.com/n…

And Maureen Ogle's article: maureenogle.com/maureen-ogl…

She actually interviews people with brewing/science degrees, and brewers. Much more reliable/informative then some random lady ranting about a topic she has absolutely no background in...

Erik Pohlman wrote:A nice view on the subject. sciencebasedmedicine.org/va…

Thanks for posting. IMO, this is the most well researched article on this topic. Read this or Anthony's links. Particularly the stuff on GMOs.

Anthony O. wrote:She actually interviews people with brewing/science degrees, and brewers. Much more reliable/informative then some random lady ranting about a topic she has absolutely no background in...

I never read that Food Babe article but quiet simply what would a brewer know about a top secret Monsanto/Dupont products? I don't trust brewers to tell me what Monsanto is cooking up in a lab... and I don't trust the scientists who Monsanto has coerced into bogus studies which is most of the industry's studies from what I can tell. Nor would I trust the Supreme court to rule fairly given one of their members was a career Monsanto lawyer (Scalia). EVEN WORSE... I can't trust the FDA ( ecowatch.com/2012/01/30/act…) since the head of food safety is one of Monsanto's top lobbyists. In the absence of any good information it's much easier to play it safe and avoid the issue (ie the food) when possible.

I trust euroland studies and policies where they have effectively banned GMO's for human consumption based on their science. They don't have the billions in lobby money flooding their system and it was clear to them they should ban it. Shouldn't that tell you something? The fact that Monsanto spent so much money fighting the Cali ballot measure last year should tell you something to. . . if it doesn't keep drinking the coolaid and smile, you'll be just fine.

I want real food. Not technology.

Morgan Patterson wrote: . . . Nor would I trust the Supreme court to rule fairly given one of their members was a career Monsanto lawyer (Scalia). EVEN WORSE... I can't trust the FDA . . .

While this is collateral to the thread, Scalia can be accused of many things, but he was never a "career Monsanto lawyer." (His employment history is not any sort of secret, and anyone who cares can verify this in less than a minute or so.)

I'm not sure what the Supreme Court may have to do with anything else in this thread, but thought I'd correct the Internet record on this one, always an important task.
(In my 1 minute of Googling, I think I see your mistake, as Thomas actually was a lawyer for Monsanto from 1977-79, not much of a career!)

pfwein wrote: While this is collateral to the thread, Scalia can be accused of many things, but he was never a "career Monsanto lawyer." (His employment history is not any sort of secret, and anyone who cares can verify this in less than a minute or so.) I'm not sure what the Supreme Court may have to do with anything else in this thread, but thought I'd correct the Internet record on this one, always an important task. (In my 1 minute of Googling, I think I see your mistake, as Thomas actually was a lawyer for Monsanto from 1977-79, not much of a career!)

yes... ur correct. Thomas, my bad. The point was how corrupt our system is on many many levels by Monsanto/et al. It has been a multi-decade strategy to infiltrate, justices, federal bureaus, politicians and their administrations, sciences, etc.

Here's the Monsanto SC case where Bryer recused himself for having ties to environmental groups yet Thomas who worked for the bloody company, stayed on to rule in their favor. ( iowaindependent.com/32870/j…)

Here's a good one to read up on since GMO and Monsanto are pretty much interchangeable. topdocumentaryfilms.com/the… I'm sure there's some inconsistencies but if this doesn't give you some perspective then I don't know what will. In 1990 when the US passed GMO laws it had nothing to do with facts or science, only Monsanto and the politician's pocket books.

You can make your own beer with all organic materials. I buy my grain from a place in N. California called Seven Bridges Co-op(brew organic.com)

SinRopa wrote:In 2011, France banned ketchup in schools. Not because of any health concerns, but to "preserve French food culture." huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/…

But ketchup is the #1 dipping sauce for FRENCH fries!!!

BEER IS BAD FOR YOU!

In other news, bears shit in the woods.

SinRopa wrote: Fact: Everything banned in Europe but not banned in the US is deadly.

Hahah ya... but unfort GMO are a significantly different issue than ketchup in schools in France ;-)

Benjamin Chapman wrote: That's right the Department of the Treasury (the folks that collect taxes) regulate alcoholic beverages, NOT the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)!! That explains why we know more about what in a can of Coke a Cola than a can of Budweiser. Chemical Additives in Beer: (this short list is but a sample)

Also included:

Carbon

Carbon makes lethal molecules like napthalene, which is used in moth balls. Moth balls in beer, holy crap!! And with an oxygen atom, the most wonderful molecule of carbon dioxide is made -- it's the silent killer, people!! Wake Up!!

Carbon

Deadly. Fucking. Serious.

Don't drink

my beer

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cNjFfbqoKqs

Beer is absolutely fine if Roger Goodell tells you that you can mention your brand of choice in public. Though in this context it's probably whatever hippie GMO free shit your friends will be impressed you found.

SinRopa wrote:" hasn't produced evidence of harm." npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2012/…

You bring up some really great points though I would be glad to point out, just because there's no current evidence of harm does not mean there is none. Take idk, smoking in our country for example... its was a healthy thing for years. Look at how industry reacted to the science and all they did to derail the real science.

I get there's biased science on both sides and as such I don't trust any of it but I am biased to be cautionary rather then sheeply like all those smokers back in the early 1900's. As a result I'd rather wait and see, rather then just blindly consume.

We have a lot of epidemics going on in the US right now one of which is obesity and allergies, not to mention autism. More and more studies are seemingly point to the over-consuption of sugars (which are predominantly GMOS in our country) and pesticides we use in our food. Monsanto as an example goes to absolutely extraordinary lengths legally to squash farmers, scientists, and politicians so it also wouldn't surprise me if there were studies @ the FDA or else where that were not published or not started due to their influence.

It causes gout.....and flatulence.

SinRopa wrote:If you wanna talk about harmful additives in beer, let's talk about di-hydrogen monoxide. This stuff is dangerous. Just try walking through airport security with a bottle of it and see what happens. It's widely used as a coolant in nuclear power plants, as a fire retardant, and the CIA uses it to make al-Qaeda detainees at Guantanamo talk, yet every single beer maker includes it in their recipe.

u mean water... we're not idiots dude. But it's not all just scare tactics. There were folks like you who said the same shit about smoking cigs. They're the ones who puffed puffed puffed and died first. By your attitude smoking doesn't cause cancer either and all those cig companies are honest as the pope!

Morgan Patterson wrote: We have a lot of epidemics going on in the US right now one of which is obesity and allergies, not to mention autism. More and more studies are seemingly point to the over-consuption of sugars (which are predominantly GMOS in our country) and pesticides we use in our food.

Cite a couple, i am curious as to what studies you are talking about.

Morgan Patterson wrote: u mean water... we're not idiots dude. But it's not all just scare tactics. There were folks like you who said the same shit about smoking cigs. They're the ones who puffed puffed puffed and died first. By your attitude smoking doesn't cause cancer either and all those cig companies are honest as the pope!

Apparently you didn't hear about the McCluskey study

Paul-B wrote: Cite a couple, i am curious as to what studies you are talking about.

http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/86/4/899.long

ucsf.edu/news/2009/06/8187/…

There's two off the cuff... the first being the more scientific.

This one puts it into more laymens terms if you don't want to read a science publication. This one has pictures, easier for mericans...

indiana.edu/~oso/Fructose/F…

and here's a euro study on corn and gmo and obesity. Admittedly, this article seems to have some bias but it quotes directly from a Norwegian study.

cornucopia.org/2012/07/obes…

I'm not say I know one way or the other or there are solid facts out there... but in the absence of any good facts (and some indications there may very well be an issue) it's better to walk away and be cautious. A skill valuable to many a life long climber.

LASTLY... editing to add this... as noted by the Libray of Congress:
loc.gov/law/help/restrictio… on Norway's official stance on GMO's. Their government has clear research showing harm:

C. Scholarly Opinion

Some scholars argue that it is better to genetically modify a plant than to use pesticides,[8] especially as high volumes of pesticides have been proven to cause cancer.[9] Yet, the Norwegian population at large is reluctant to change the laws, causing researchers to claim, “we cannot get [the research] financed, the farmers don’t want it and the consumers don’t want it.”[10] Other GMO-related negative research that has received more traction includes a study on rats, which found that rats who eat GM corn are fatter than rats fed with normal corn.[11] Another study in pigs showed that “GMO-fed” pigs were less healthy than pigs fed with non-GMO fodder.[12]

[11] Rotter fetere av genmat, Forskning.no (July 11, 2012), forskning.no/artikler/2012/….

[12] Griser far darligere helse med genmodifisert mat, NHI.no (June 13, 2013), nhi.no/forside/griser-far-d….

Paul-B wrote: Apparently you didn't hear about the McCluskey study

Was that the one that said nuclear radiation doesn't harm conservative leaning humans? lol... maybe we can host a tea party at one of the nuke plants and let them play in the light!